What the Mueller Hearing Was Really About

[Peter J Barban]

It not only failed, but it also backfired. Mueller was exposed as a figurehead who was unfamiliar with the details of his report.

Mueller's credibility took a major hit, which impacts the credibility of his report.

 

[Yarddog]

A lot of misinformation surrounded the Special Council's investigation and final report. Mueller didn't write the report. Which is why he simply referred to what was in the report when asked, and didn't provide any direct information as pertained to pages, or sections.

Furthermore, a Democrat in the panel asked Mueller to reiterate that he did not exonerate Trump in his report. Well, no kidding. Mueller doesn't have the authority to either convict nor exonerate. His was an investigation. And President Donald Trump is fully protected by the presumption of innocence till proven guilty in any investigation.

What did happen that was under Mueller's jurisdiction is, he found no evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice by Donald Trump or anyone related to his campaign or other interests.

That settles the whole matter. Because that's all Mueller was charged with finding out and all that he could arrive at as a conclusion, by law.

If Russia collusion and obstruction of justice were a fair intent for an open investigation , we know there is plenty to find on the other side of the aisle. Starting with our former President Obama, down to his appointed Secretary of State who served the office at his pleasure, down to Comey, who is one of Mueller's best friends, and onward.

Will that investigation with actual evidence get underway? Not likely. But at least this fiasco is over and done with.
Poor Mueller. He was failing terribly in that five hour circus. But at least he can go home and stay retired now.
God be with him.

Hmmm, didn't read the report did you? You also must not have paid attention to the hearing. Plenty of evidence was laid out in the report of collusion and obstruction of justice.

I didn't get the opportunity to watch much of the Intelligence Committee hearing but the first hearing focused mainly on the obstruction case, which explained that clearly.

 

[parousia70]

Excellent. Thank you. That's one alleged impeachable issue that won't float.

Why?
Where exactly is it mandated that an offense must be found in the criminal code in order for it to be impeachable?

 

[Alien Lotus]

He did, however document that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation, each of which is a felony.

That's false. You may choose to ignore Mueller's remarks because you want Trump to be guilty of something no matter the truth that he is not, but that does not alter what Mueller, who you invoke, stated.
Mueller evaluated 10 episodes for possible obstruction of justice, and said he (Mueller) could not conclusively determine that Trump had committed criminal obstruction.

That means, no felony. No evidence of criminal obstruction.

The rest of your remarks are irrelevant to that fact. Mueller speaks for himself.

 

[Alien Lotus]

There's a lot of talk that Mueller did not exonerate Trump in his report. Even Mueller states that.
That's because Mueller in his designation as Special Counsel did not have the power to exonerate Trump.
GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

However, when Mueller stated there was insufficient evidence to support either collusion, which is not illegal, or obstruction, that means there is no evidence to warrant charges. When there is insufficient evidence, and Trump under law is presumed innocent till proven guilty, there is no evidence to bring charges.

 

[Yarddog]

There's a lot of talk that Mueller did not exonerate Trump in his report. Even Mueller states that.
That's because Mueller in his designation as Special Counsel did not have the power to exonerate Trump.
GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

Correct and Mueller didn't say that he did.

However, when Mueller stated there was insufficient evidence to support either collusion,

No he didn't. He said collusion is not a legal term used.

which is not illegal,

That is not correct. It all depends on what one colludes to do. If that action is illegal, then one can be prosecuted.

or obstruction, that means there is no evidence to warrant charges.

Incorrect again. The report outlined a number of attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation. He couldn't file charges against Trump because of DOJ regulations. He did say that Trump could be charged after he leaves office.

When there is insufficient evidence, and Trump under law is presumed innocent till proven guilty, there is no evidence to bring charges.

There was insufficient evidence that Trump cooperated in a conspiracy to interfere in the last election with Russia. There was, though, plenty of evidence that Russia did and still is meddling in our election process.

 

[Albion]

There was insufficient evidence that Trump cooperated in a conspiracy to interfere in the last election with Russia.

Then its case closed. OR ought to be.

That Nadler and Co. keep subpoena-ing people and documents just to keep a toothless theory before the voters doesn't change it.

 

[Yarddog]

Then its case closed. OR ought to be.

The criminal case is closed against criminal conspiracy, unless further evidence comes to light.

That Nadler and Co. keep subpoena-ing people and documents just to keep a toothless theory before the voters doesn't change it.

Not unless evidence is found.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He did, however document that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation, each of which is a felony.

That's false.

No, it's quite true, and well-documened.

You may choose to ignore Mueller's remarks because you want Trump to be innocent, no matter the truth that he is not, but that does not alter what Mueller, who you invoke, stated in his report:

Mueller lists, at great length, Trump’s efforts to derail the investigation. At one point, he writes that Trump’s attempts to influence the probe failed “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his request.”
The Mueller report makes a damning case that Trump obstructed justice

And yes, courts have already held that an attempt to obstruct justice is a felony, even if it fails. That means, Trump committed a felony. Damning evidence of attempted criminal obstruction. Which has already been determined by law to be a felony.

The rest of your remarks are irrelevant to that fact. Mueller speaks for himself. Mueller has refused to say whether Trump is guilty or innocent; he merely points out that a sitting president can't be indicted, and that his investigation did not exonerate Trump.

The Southern District of New York is waiting for him to leave office, as are several state AGs, from states in which these acts occurred.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Correct and Mueller didn't say that he did.

I never said otherwise. Read my post again.

All the rest is just a rehash of, 'nuh uh". The case is closed. No sufficient evidence to support either collusion nor obstruction. That's in the report that I did read cover to cover.
Trump haters imagine there's more. When Mueller says there isn't , and the law says Mueller can't exonerate anyone, which Mueller stated when he said he didn't exonerate Trump, only that was language he knew the Dem's would latch on to to then argue that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump means Trump is guilty, is just more smoke and mirrors surrounding the witch hunt.

It's done.

​

​

West Wing Reads
What Mueller Was Trying to Hide

“Special counsel Robert Mueller testified before two House committees Wednesday, and his performance requires us to look at his investigation and report in a new light,” Kimberly Strassel writes in The Wall Street Journal.

“We’ve been told it was solely about Russian electoral interference and obstruction of justice. It’s now clear it was equally about protecting the actual miscreants behind the Russia-collusion hoax. The most notable aspect of the Mueller report was always what it omitted: the origins of this mess.”

What were those origins? “Christopher Steele’s dossier was central to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe . . . The report ignored Mr. Steele’s paymaster, Fusion GPS, and its own ties to Russians. It also ignored Fusion’s paymaster, the Clinton campaign, and the ugly politics behind the dossier hit job.”

Click here to read more.

​

Nine times during Wednesday’s hearing, Robert Mueller answered that something was not in his “purview” to investigate. And each time, it was “in response to questions about the origin story of the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes. “Americans need to know how and why a U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agency came to spy on a presidential campaign . . . The good news is that [Attorney General] Barr does seem determined to find the truth.”

​

 

[The Barbarian]

So because Mueller wouldn't address anything outside of his instructions by the AG, that means he was bringing up things outside of his instructions by the AG?
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel

Could you be a little more clear about how that worked?

 

[Yarddog]

I never said otherwise. Read my post again.

Why? I read it and replied correctly.
[/quote]
All the rest is just a rehash of, 'nuh uh". The case is closed. No sufficient evidence to support either collusion nor obstruction. That's in the report that I did read cover to cover.[/quote]
Anyone can read the report, with prejudice, and twist it to say what they want. Mueller, though, made it clear that the case isn't closed because Trump can be charged after he is out of office.

Trump haters imagine there's more. When Mueller says there isn't ,

No he didn't. Mueller said the they didn't find sufficient evidence to charge him with cooperation in the Russian election crimes. His investigation was limited and there may be evidence which he was unable to find.

and the law says Mueller can't exonerate anyone, which Mueller stated when he said he didn't exonerate Trump, only that was language he knew the Dem's would latch on to to then argue that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump means Trump is guilty, is just more smoke and mirrors surrounding the witch hunt.

Provide the evidence that he said that. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump of any of the crimes he was investigating. He investigated and charged those he could prosecute with crimes. He didn't charge Trump because he cannot because of DOJ rules.

It's done.

We'll see after the next election.

​

​

 

[kcnalp]

The Dems are utterly desperate. If they don't stop Trump one way or another many Dem leaders may go to prison for the Russia hoax.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Dems are utterly desperate. If they don't stop Trump one way or another many Dem leaders may go to prison for the Russia hoax.

Do you really think they'll do better than the "Hillary is a crook" fiasco? Do you remember Trey Gowdy stammering and evading questions from reporters when he finally had to admit there was nothing illegal there?

The difference between the democrats going free and the host of Trump underlings going to jail is, in Trump's case, there were actual crimes committed.

Reality still counts.

 

[Gigimo]

That moment during the testimony and his not knowing what Fusion GPS meant were very telling, weren't they?

He had to say that, playing dumb is better than admitting they intentionally left out very pertinent information.

 

[parousia70]

SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”

MUELLER: “Yes.”

SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”

MUELLER: “Yes.”

 

[Alien Lotus]

Hmmm, didn't read the report did you? You also must not have paid attention to the hearing. Plenty of evidence was laid out in the report of collusion and obstruction of justice.

I didn't get the opportunity to watch much of the Intelligence Committee hearing but the first hearing focused mainly on the obstruction case, which explained that clearly.

Go ahead and ignore all the parts of the Mueller report that stated there was not sufficient evidence to support collusion nor obstruction on the part of Trump. That was clear but you ignore it.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Why? I read it and replied correctly.

All the rest is just a rehash of, 'nuh uh". The case is closed. No sufficient evidence to support either collusion nor obstruction. That's in the report that I did read cover to cover.[/quote]
Anyone can read the report, with prejudice, and twist it to say what they want. Mueller, though, made it clear that the case isn't closed because Trump can be charged after he is out of office.

No he didn't. Mueller said the they didn't find sufficient evidence to charge him with cooperation in the Russian election crimes. His investigation was limited and there may be evidence which he was unable to find.

Provide the evidence that he said that. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump of any of the crimes he was investigating. He investigated and charged those he could prosecute with crimes. He didn't charge Trump because he cannot because of DOJ rules.

We'll see after the next election.
https://whitehouse.us19.list-manage...d48b4efa4fc1138955&id=45224e6848&e=4463e7b6c5

​

[/QUOTE] When Trump is re-elected the hate circus will start all over again. If the Republicans get majority in both houses maybe then more can be done for the country without the obstruction currently at work in the House.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Why?
Where exactly is it mandated that an offense must be found in the criminal code in order for it to be impeachable?

Great question. You should forward that to the Democrats in the house since they seem to think that is the case.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Do you really think they'll do better than the "Hillary is a crook" fiasco? Do you remember Trey Gowdy stammering and evading questions from reporters when he finally had to admit there was nothing illegal there?

The difference between the democrats going free and the host of Trump underlings going to jail is, in Trump's case, there were actual crimes committed.

Reality still counts.

Clearly not to Democrats.